Love for Life

The Covenants Of The Gods
The Contractual Nature Of Governments Of The World
From The Book The Covenants Of The Gods
The Covenants Of The Gods

The Covenants Of The Gods:

------

LAW

Law (The legal system of God)

vs.

Legal (The lawful system of man)

To investigate is the way to know what things are really lawful.43

“Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.”44

In the above statement the Supreme court talks of “what only appears to be law” “on the surface.” What are we so ignorant of, that we would mistake something for law that is not law? We have grown up hearing phrases like, “The law is the law,” and “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” What is law and what makes something law?

Since, “The origin of a thing ought to be inquired into,”45 then it would follow that we should look into the origin of the word “law” to give us some idea of its meaning today.

Unlike many of the terms used in the legal system of the United States, the word “law” does not come from the Latin but from the Anglo-Saxon word lagu and the Middle English lawe, laghe meaning just, right and fair. In Latin “law” would be translated jus (juris) from which we take the word justice. The Romans had another word, lex (legis), from which we get the word legal meaning “statute, bill, principle, rule; contract, condition…” What is legal (connected by contract) becomes lawful (just) by consent.

The legal system based upon freedom has no lawful power to “command” until an individual binds himself to it “for lex (law) is derived from ligare (to bind), because it binds one to act.”46

“All government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery!”47

If the Romans, from whom we take much of the principles upon which the present legal system relies, saw fit and necessary to use two separate and distinct words, one lex and the other jus then why do we often use them interchangeably. It is in the distinction between these two words that much of our honest confusion lies.

“That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also.”48

While, “The law (jus) is the rule of right; and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is an injury,”49 we find that “human laws (lex, leges) are born, live, and die.”50 “That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also.”51 Therefore, “The contract makes the law”52 for our children as well as for ourselves.

“We shall have world government whether or not we like it.

The question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”53

In the maxim “Consent makes the law,” it is evident that it is our authorization that makes a man made rule, such as a statute, law. It is not the arbitrary proclamation of a remote group of men, be it parliament or congress that binds men to obedience and subjection. Could this mean that a person can simply disregard all legislation that he himself arbitrarily disagrees with for one reason or another? No, can only be the answer else all government would be anarchy.

A contract is law between the parties having received their consent.54

How does government receive consent? When does an act of consent truly become binding? “In every contract, whether nominate or innominate, there is implied an exchange, i.e. a consideration.”55 Nodding the head, raising your right hand, or signing a piece of paper are all evidence that you have given consent but the taking of “sufficient consideration” is an act that adds force and authority to consent, for either you have consented to an exchange of consideration or you are a thief. A contract is “an agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing.”56 What is the consideration between government and its citizens?

Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear.57

There are countless ways in which the state works its craft of expanding its power and presence in the world but one way is by consent. It should be realized that even though coercion through force and fear are often used the only real binding and lawful consent is voluntary.

What is mine cannot be taken away without consent.58

If it is consent that makes the legal system a lawful system then it is at the point of our consent that we become bound to obey a legal rule. It does not matter that those legal rules are changed regularly, as long as those rules are changed in accordance with the system that was set down at the origin of the legal system and the individual’s assent. All this, despite the fact that consent maybe acquired by appealing to the slothful greed and coveting selfishness of the individual.

The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute. (Pr 12:24)

“The laws of England are threefold: common law, customs, and decrees of parliament.”59 There was law in England long before a parliament was convened. Then “new states of facts arising out of changed economic and social conditions” brought the desire for, if not a need for, a strong central government.

"Pacta sunt servanda.”60 “Non Pacta, non servanda”

“Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066 the people were the fountainhead of justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these non professional courts the Norman king, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers who devoted most of their time and energy to the administration of justice, and the courts over which they presided were so efficient that they gradually all but displaced the popular, nonprofessional courts.”61

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. (1 Samuel 8:6)

William of Normandy came to England to collect a disputed debt owed to him by Harold. He did not conquer and seize all of England but only Harold and his properties, duties and obligations (and those hereditaments of the freemen who had fought along side Harold in his attempt to avoid payment to William). Also from his assumed position, William “insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice” and began to consolidate and expand his position and authority by waging war against all who opposed his claim to Harold’s limited kingly dominion.62 Many changes were brought about as a result of Williams strong presence. He opened the door to customs and forms of law that had no foothold in the land of the Anglos since the fall of the Roman Empire. He instituted a survey of all the land that fell under his sword by right of trial by conquest. This was done for the purpose of collecting an excise or tribute tax on the land of those who were forced in defeat to take an oath of fealty and bind their allegiance and lands to William. The people of England called the book that included these subject lands the “Doomsday Book” and it is still called that to this day.

Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:25)

With this growing loss of freehold titles in land, the “large numbers of freemen” who were so necessary for the administration of the Common Law of Land were no longer available.

Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour’s wife: and shall ye possess the land? (Ezekiel 33:26)

A legal title is not a freehold, lawful or a fee simple title. Were the remaining freehold titles in land lost by conquest or by other means?

“Towns and boroughs act as if persons.”63

Many followed William, establishing the concepts of towns and cities, which had been traditionally shunned by the Anglos, along with other customs of business and a loyalty to their homeland that opened a freer avenue for the establishment of commerce.

...they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. (Ge. 11:4)

And as for the people, he removed them to cities from [one] end of the borders of Egypt even to the end thereof. (Ge. 47:21)

The law of the Anglo-Saxons still remained intact but not for those who fell subject to William and his successors. The two systems lived side by side in a manner similar to the two jurisdictional systems of law used in the Roman Empire following their own Roman civil war.

The “common law” is “distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures,” and it “comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity…” And “as concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution”64

Liberi. In Saxon Law - Freeman; the possessors of allodial lands.65

The common law is dependent upon “large numbers of freemen” who can decide both fact and law as distinguished from the jurors of the United States today which have lost their allodial land through neglect and ignorance. Today’s jurors as U.S. citizens are subject to the administration of government. They are almost always sworn to abide by the decrees of the legislature before they take to their seat as jurors, which allows them to judge only the facts of a case, leaving the determination of law in the hands of the legislature and the administering professional judges. Is this the way it was in the beginning?

Liber homo. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror.66 An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.67

The original settlers and founders of this republic called the Americas, had come here fleeing the king’s justice saying, ‘Farewell, Rome. Farewell, Babylon’. Here the individual had access to a free-dominion by the relinquishment, in charter, of the right of the king to make law without consent. In the case of the American colonies, which were republics and were guaranteed by contract with the king that no law could be made “except by the consent of the freeman,” there was a clear consideration as there was with Harold the last Anglo-Saxon king in England. The king of England was to give the colonies the benefit of his protection from “foreign invasion” and in exchange he could impose only excise (use) taxes and tariffs (taxes on foreign trade) as well as regulate the equitable practice of business for which there were no remedies at the common law.

The extent of the legal authority of the king of Britain in the Americas was limited. It was his usurpation (seizing a use) of rights that were not his that led to the Declaration of Independence, where by the colonial governments became totally independent states at any dissolution of the charter. A dissolution caused by the king’s breaking the contract and violating the terms of the agreement. The limited authority and responsibility of the king was then assumed by the colonial governments who eventually bound themselves together by Articles of Confederation, and later by a constitution which created a legal society with certain limited obligations and privileges to the general populus of the republics.

“The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”68

The United States Federal government, that exists within the given jurisdiction of the original republics, is a limited jurisdiction within itself. It grew not by decree but by government offers and individual acceptance. In other words the limited authority of government expanded by expanding the offer of benefits and obligations to the individual citizens in the republic including membership in the Government itself. The more desired, the more offered and the more that was accepted, all the more was required. A guarantee of an entitlement grants a reciprocating entitlement to the Benefactor.

The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.
(Proverbs 21:25)

These benefits were not part of the original obligations of the state governments or the United States Federal government. The average citizen cannot in justice accept them without offering at least some seemingly equal consideration.

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent not. (Proverbs 1, 10)

Each time we accept or apply for new bounties, donations and benefits we are consenting by deed or word to the legal authority of that government or body politic. We grant power.

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. (Ephesians 4:28)

To take what is not a gift and is not owed, with no intention of returning equal consideration, is the essence of stealing. To accept without consenting to pay the price is the essence of theft. Ignorance of this fundamental principle is the “ignorance of law”. That the law does not excuse.

I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding;… I looked upon [it, and] received instruction. Then I saw, [and] considered [it] well: I looked upon [it, and] received instruction. [Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come [as] one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man. (Pr. 24:30, 34)

“In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law.” Positive Law is, “Law actually ordained or established, under human sanctions, as distinguished from the law of nature or natural law, which comprises those considerations of justice, right, and universal expediency that are announced by the voice of reason or of revelation…69

“Law governs men and reason the law.” 70

Natural Law or the law of nature is, “The divine will, or the dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity that there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Sometimes used of the law of human reason, in contradistinction to the revealed law, and sometimes of both, in contradistinction to positive law.”

The Natural Law is divine will not merely the will of men who by their own reason have determined it. If the reason is not right reason then the law or rule is not truly Natural Law. Natural law as a term may have several uses and should be clarified when ever it is used.

“They [natural laws] are independent of any artificial connections, and differ from mere presumptions of law in this essential respect, that the latter depend on and are a branch of the peculiar system of jurisprudence to which they belong; but mere natural presumptions are derived wholly by means of the common experience of mankind, without the aid or control of any particular rule of law, but simply from the course of nature and the habits of society. These presumptions fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts.”71

Jury Nullification “...jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.”72

The natural law being ‘divine will’ and ‘right reason’ are not connected to mere ‘presumptions of law’. Presumptions of law are dependent upon ‘peculiar systems of jurisprudence’.

Jurisprudence ‘is but the philosophy of law or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relationships’. The term, jurisprudence, ‘is wrongly applied to actual systems of law’.73

To say that these presumption fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts, does not mean that the jury is to pass upon the facts of the case and not the law. It means that a jury is to decide upon the presumption of law based on their own common experience and God given conscience.

“Nothing against reason is lawful.”74

The word legal itself is defined in Black’s 3rd as:

1. Conforming to law; according to law; required or permitted by law…

2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by law; cognizable in the courts…

3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law…

4. Posited [assumed] by courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof.

5. Created by law.

Legal systems may ‘conform to law’, they may be ‘permitted by law’, they may even be created by law but they are not law in themselves. They may become law by consent and constructions of law. What is legal is ‘cognizable in courts of law; as distinguished from courts of equity’ which are not ‘governed by rules of law’.

It should be clear that any legal system is subject to the prior and essential principles of law. Law that is basic, fundamental and well established over thousands of years of recorded history. It must be understood that it is consent that makes what is only legally proclaimed, lawfully established. Also it should be apparent that to bind oneself to a legal system that is constantly under the process of change is at least dangerous if not inevitably disastrous.

And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.75

He was a mighty provider before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty provider before the LORD. (Genesis 10:9)

“The jurisdiction of equity court, gradually developed by the chancellor, was limited only by the chancellor himself. There were two important limitations, both adopted to avoid any clash with the common-law courts. One was that equity would not interfere where there was an adequate remedy at common law; the other was that equity would act merely against the person of the common law plaintiff or defendant and therefore affect the legal right only in that indirect fashion.”76 Equity was dealing with legal rights of a person not lawful rights of an individual freeman. Equity’s courts administered the king’s justice, in the king’s dominion.

“A person is a man considered in reference to a certain status.”77

So, when the term common law is used, there is the common law of the individual freeman and the common-law of the legislature. The courts of equity were used to fulfill a need for remedies that the common law by tradition and custom did not provide for, acts outside the realm of its reasoning jurisdiction, as in the case of “trusts and uses.”

“Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure.” 78

Equity is a “body of rules existing by the side of the original civil law, founded on distinct principles, and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law in virtue of a superior sanctity inherent in those principles.”79

First, equity is not law in itself but it only exists “by the side of” the law and the civil law at that. The “‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.”80 Second, it should be noted that it only claims to supersede the civil law.

“As old rules become too narrow, or are felt to be out of harmony with advancing civilization, a machinery is needed for their gradual enlargement and adaptation to new views of society. One mode of accomplishing this object on a large scale, without appearing to disregard existing law, is the introduction, by the prerogative of some high functionary, of a more perfect body of rules, discoverable in his judicial conscience, which is to stand side by side with the law of the land, overriding it in case of conflict, as on some title of inherent superiority, but not purporting to repeal it. Such a body of rules has been called Equity.”81

America was settled by men who came to this new land to escape the arbitrary bonds of civil and equitable systems that were often no more than the will of despotic tyrants and sought to be at least in principle ruled by Divine will.

The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts.82

Even the United States government in establishing its own legal system was forced by custom and reason “that suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law.”83

Equity is not law either in the sense of the common law or the civil legal system. Equity is designed and used to enlarge the system of laws without appearing to disregard the laws themselves, overriding them but not repealing them. It is that “part of the law which, having power to enforce discovery, (1) administers trusts, mortgages, and other fiduciary obligations; (2) administers and adjusts common-law rights where the courts of common law have no machinery; (3) supplies a specific and preventive remedy for common law wrongs where courts of common law only give subsequent damages.”84

Equity is important because, in a civil society such as the one created by the Constitution, it is the instrument used to remedy conflicts that arise from certain relations where plain, adequate, and complete remedy may not be had at law. Equity is used to administer trusts and uses.

The phrase ‘legal tender’ is found on the paper currencies of the world including those used by the United States. Blue sealed certificates, red sealed United States notes, or green sealed Federal Reserve notes all state that they are “legal tender for all debts public and private.” For decades these notes also stated that they were “redeemable in lawful money.” If they were redeemable in lawful money then it should be clear that they are not lawful money. Gold and silver are lawful money, which is used as “payment of debt.”85 Legal tender is a legal offer in place of payment of debt and does not lawfully pay a debt. Although it may legally discharge debt, the tender or offer does not pay the debt at law. “There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist…” 86

Where does this debt continue?

It goes on to say, “…which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment.”87

“The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility

rests on possession and use of land.” Emerson.

A “legal title” is “one cognizable… in a court of law.”88 “Judicial cognizance” being “judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence.”89 Even more important a legal title is “one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of ‘equitable title.’90

And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: (II Pe. 2, 2-3.)

First, we see that a legal title although it may appear to be a “right of ownership” it “carries no beneficial interest.” If a legal title does not include a right to the beneficial interest then it does not include a right to the “profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract,” nor does it include “the ownership of an estate.” After all, a beneficial interest is “distinct from the legal ownership.”91 In the simplest of terms a legal title only appears to be a right to ownership but it is not the “ownership of an estate.”

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: (Exodus 34, 12.)

By definition, a legal title is the opposite or at least the antithesis of an “equitable title.” An equitable title as opposed to a legal title “is a right in the party” rather than only appearing to be a right. More important it is “the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.”92

Even though you may discharge a debt and obtain legal titles you still do not have clear and good titles, which “are synonymous; ‘clear title’ meaning that the land is free from incumbrances, ‘good title’ being one free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record.”93

Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good [things] in possession. (Proverbs 28:10)

This division of true title into a legal title on one hand verses an equitable title on the other is called equitable conversion. equitable conversion is a “Constructive conversion.”

CONVERSION is an, "alteration, interchange, metamorphosis, passage, reconstruction....”94

BENEFICIAL INTEREST is the, “Profit, benefit, or advantage resulting from a contract, or the ownership of an estate as distinct from the legal ownership or control.”95

BENEFICIAL USE is, “the right to use and enjoy property according to one’s own liking or so as to derive a profit or benefit from it…96

Is it any wonder that you are required to get a permit to build on what you think is your land? You have to get permission, a license, to operate what you believe is your car. If you do not pay the use, tribute or excise tax on your land, auto or labor you will loose them all. Haven’t you lost them already if you do not own them, the use of them? If you lack the right to the benefit or profit of a thing can you say you own it at all? Does anyone have a lawful title? And who has the true title and for what purpose do they have it?

You have a legal right to work only if you have applied for and obtained an employee identification number and labor for an employer with an employer identification number.

The word legal originates in the idea of being connected to a legal system by contract. The connection is most often created by consent and acceptance. What is to be legal becomes law by that consent and one of the essential ingredient of that consent is mutual consideration whether by application or indulgence. Therefore upon entering into a legal society a person waives certain rights naturally inherent in an individual and becomes obligated to abide by the administration of the legally established laws and rules of that civil society. Those rules can include such systems as Equity as well as general constructions of law. In Equity the extent of contractual participation may vary.

It is by an indulging consent that these mere constructions of law divide a clear and good title into a legal title on one hand and the equitable title on the other.

A legal title may appear to be a right of ownership but it is not. Legal title provides no beneficial interest and therefore no right to the profit, benefit, or advantage in the property. If you do not pay the legally prescribed use tax, they, the administers of the trust holding the equitable title, may summarily take the property away from you. Somewhere, someone or something holding the equitable title is the actual owner in the eyes of the Natural law, of your land, your home, your car, your cattle, your legal right to work and much, much more. You have no right since your conversion, alteration or rebirth. You have no right to the profit, benefit, or advantage of such things but only an apparent legal ownership.

If things have been equitably converted can they be equitably reconverted? Can things be turned around from what they have become? Can you make a legal title a lawful, good and complete title again?97

Can you now apply this idea that someone else may hold the true and lawful title to everything that you only appear to own but do not? Has it been kept a secret, a mystery how everything that the LORD, God, has given you is owned by another whom the law considers the true owner of the property?

Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen,… and wheat, and beasts… and slaves, and souls of men. (Revelation 18:10, 13)

Have you been seduced with vain offers and the seduction of a covetous heart or is it through ignorance and lack of knowledge that you have been sold into slavery, yoked with unbelievers and entangled by contractual relationships?

For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollution’s of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:18, 22)

If we have followed the ways of men can we return to the ways of the LORD? Who has deceived us? Who has devised this plan of confusion and deceit?

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Lu 11:52)

Who shall we seek to know the truth? Who shall we cry out to, man or the LORD God? The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he [is] the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? (Malachi 2:6, 10)

ABBA! FATHER!

The book The Covenants of the gods is an iconoclastic explication that shatters the delusions of a deceived world. History, law and the Bible are melded together in a unique eye opening exegesis that answers the burning question that has haunted men since the beginning of time.

"...Are men free souls under God?" Order this Book: http://www.hisholychurch.net/order/materialscovenants.html

Here are descriptions of the contents of each chapters.

It is recommended that you study them in order.

* Holy Matrimony vs. Marriage discuses the difference between Holy Matrimony, an Ecclesiastical ceremony with no legal significance, and that legally binding covenant with the state called Marriage that is in opposition to the God given relationship of man and woman as Husband and Wife.

* Law vs. Legal touches on some of the fundamental opposing principles of these two different sources of righteous authority, bondage and jurisdiction in past and present established societies.

* Citizen vs. Citizen discusses at least two distinct and different types of citizenship in America today.

* Employ vs. Enslave explains the fundamental differences between man's inalienable right to the sweat of his brow granted him by his Creator and his legal right to labor for another master, ruler or god.

* God vs. Government speaks of the principle conflict between God's way and man's foolishness.

* Heaven vs. Heaven discusses the nature of God's Kingdom in Heaven and on Earth.

* Republic vs. Democracy talks of the differences between these dissimilar and opposing forms of government.

* Democracy vs. Demagogue touches on the fallacies, foolishness and dangers of democracy.

* The System vs. The System references the system established by man in opposition to the system established by God the Father.

* Conversion vs. Reconversion discusses the significance of equitable conversion, being born again, in reference to land and labor and living in God's Kingdom.

* Money vs. Mammon references the fallacies and foolishness and the fiat character of the present money systems as well as its origins and nature and why it has delivered you into destitution and bondage.

* Trust vs. Faith expresses the importance of faith in The LORD God and the traps, seductions and dangers of trusting in lesser gods.

* Deported vs. Departed references excommunication from the world systems and why it has been desired throughout history even unto this day.

* The Charagma vs. The Card touches on the concepts of the beast and the image of the beast as well as the so called mark of the beast as it was used then and now. [What is the mark and why you have it].

* The Body of Christ Vs. The Body of the State looks at the Church, the State established by Jesus the Christ, manditorially exempt from the control of man's government and churches established under the State with strict operational restrictions.

-------------------------------------------------------

Citizen (in the world)

Vs.

Citizen (of the world)

"Good government is no substitute for self-government." Gandhi, Mahatma

Man’s basic need for government stems from his inability to govern himself. According to the beliefs that have come down to us from antiquity man should be governed by his Divine Creator who wishes to write his laws upon your minds and upon your hearts. But history clearly shows, from Saul to Caesar and Harold to Bill, that men in general have always rejected such a seemingly abstract spiritual relationship with their Creator. They have often opted for a more secular form of government, finding an imagined stability in laws and statutes, whether written upon stone or parchment, and the charismatic personalities of the world with the comfort of their seducing promises of success, affluence and indulgence.

Nay; but we will have a king over us; (Samuel 8;19)

In the time of Samuel men begged for a king but they were not so arrogant as to believe that they had the personal wisdom to choose their own leader. Men have often relied on the divine right of kings to make such decisions with an occasional bloody war or revolution to sway and influence and divert succession in one direction or another.

Today, we have molded with our own hands a government according to our own personal image of perfection, to exceed all others in comprehensive scope, political and economic totality, and individual allegiance. But when something goes awash in the proverbial political sandbox it is always the other guy who is to blame.

It would be convenient for our pride and the comfort of our conscience to blame the assumed or supposed acts of tyranny by government and its bureaucracies totally on their usurpation of the law, but would that be true? Would that be honest? Would that be just? After all if it is lawful to do with our own what we will then is it not lawful for government to do with its’ own what it wills.

If we will not be ruled by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants. 98

In order to understand government it would obviously be important to understand the origin of man’s relationship to it. There are many ways to approach the subject and many words that should be examined in order to comprehend the nature of the union of man and government.

To begin, let us examine a few words that are commonly misused under the assumption that we understand them. In Webster’s there are numerous definitions for the word citizen. A citizen was “formerly, a native or inhabitant especially a freeman…” The word can be used “loosely, a native, inhabitant or denizen [an inhabitant or occupant] of any place.” But a citizen may also be “a member of a state or nation.”99

There is a similar distinction between the words ‘person’ and ‘individual’ which are found in The Volume Library’s100 list of most frequently misused words. The word individual “should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in ‘Changes both in individuals and communities.’” An individual can be considered on the same level as a community or at least separate from it. While a person is a “member” of a community and therefore an intricate part of it.

The maxims, “Every person is a man, but not every man a person,”101 and, “Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona), of the civil law,”102 clarifies this distinction.

There are several other distinctions that should be well understood when using the word citizen.

“The term ‘citizen’ is distinguishable from ‘resident’ or ‘inhabitant.’ One may be a citizen of a state without being an inhabitant, or an inhabitant without being a citizen.”

“Often the terms ‘citizen’ and voter are confused. A voter is a person who is allowed by law to take part in the government. A citizen is a member of the nation. A citizen of the United States is a member of the large society which we call the United States of America.”

“In the United States citizenship is defined in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.’”103

“I believe in the United States of America as a government… whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed: a democracy in a republic.”104

The United States Federal government is a political society existing within the extended jurisdictional authority or dominion of the original Republic or Republics. The largest portion of the Republics’ original authority rested in the hands of the “individual freeman” in the realm of his own individual dominion. The authority of the government of the original American Republic was merely “titular,” meaning “in name only.” There was some limited authority that was vested in the original Colonial Republics and those State Republics following the Declaration of Independence. However, none of the authority of those Republics could make laws regulating the Natural behavior or the exercise of Inalienable Rights of the freeman without consent. Therefore, the United States Federal government at its inception had no sovereignty, power or authority to regulate natural rights. It was created originally by the State Republics (not the individual people) through an agreement called the Constitution of the United States made during a convention of separate states.

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative.”105 “In one sense, the term ‘sovereign’ has for its correlative ‘subject.’ In this sense. the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the [Original] Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects.”106 “For when the [so called American] revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendered by the constitution to the general government.”107

The original States, finding their limited authority and dominion inadequate, vested some of their rights and duties in a separate governmental organization called the United States.

Today, “in the United States ‘it [citizenship] is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”108 Originally citizenship did not include the title or sense of subject but later in the United States we see a citizenship binding subjects to the laws of a sovereign.

A sovereign is “one who exercises supreme power; a supreme ruler; the person having the highest authority in a state, as a king, emperor, queen, etc.; a monarch.”109 A sovereign makes law.

If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants [are] wicked. (Pr 29:12)

“Constantly bearing in mind that in entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest…110

The fourteenth amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership as opposed to the former use of the word which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment for there surely was. The fourteenth was an across the board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States federal government.

Prior to the fourteenth amendment, “No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it.” 111

Do you have the same rights as citizens of the United States by virtue of the 14 Amendment as do natural Citizens of the Republic in which the United States exists?

In Twining v. New Jersey ‘due process’ seems to take on a distinction separate from what many people believe to be the law today.

“The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 US 90), and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment by grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516), and in respect of the right to be confronted with witness is, contained in the Sixth Amendment. West v. Louisiana, 194 US 258. In Maxwell v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state court of a felony upon information and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment… the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid the States to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because these rights were not within the meaning of the clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States…

“…it is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against State action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law… If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.” 112

It is understandable that the average person might not think that this was the case. But most people also don’t understand that America was a republic prior the Constitution and even before the Declaration of Independence. Nor do they realize the true nature of that republic and the motivation of those people who populated it. Many don’t realize that the majority of the people in America were in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution for the United States at the time of its creation by the individual States, which were as foreign to each other as Mexico is to Canada both before and after that Constitution. Yet, all these historical and legal facts are well documented in history.

“Just as the revolutionary Adams opposed the Constitution in Massachusetts, so did Patrick Henry in Virginia, and the contest in that most important State of all was prolonged and bitter. He who in Stamp Act days had proclaimed that there should be no Virginians or New Yorkers, but only Americans, now declaimed as violently against the preamble of the Constitution because it began, ‘We the people of the United States’ instead of ‘We, the State.’ Like many, he feared a ‘consolidated’ government, and the loss of states rights. Not only Henry but much abler men, such as Mason, Benjamin Harrison, Munroe, R.H. Lee were also opposed and debated…others in what was the most acute discussion carried on anywhere…”

“Owing to the way in which the conventions were held, the great opposition manifested everywhere, and the management required to secure the barest majorities for ratification, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the greater part of the people were opposed to the Constitution.”

“It was not submitted to the people directly, and in those days of generally limited suffrage, even those who voted for delegates to the State conventions were mostly of a propertied class, although the amount of property called for may have been slight.”113

Was the Constitution of the United States ever ratified and what is its true source of authority? There has been serious questions raised and continuous arguments made about the lawful passing of certain amendments. The fact is the Constitution of the United States was never ratified according to the law at the time and its creation was an act of revolution against the law and the will of the people.

“If a constitution expressly provides that it may be amended only in a certain way and another way followed, such and attempted amendment is illegal; but if it is acquiesced in it becomes effective as a peaceful revolution such as took place when the United States Constitution took effect upon the ratification by nine states in spite of the fact that the old Articles of Confederation provided that they should not be amended without unanimous consent of the states.” 114

Ignorance and vanity tempered with apathy and avarice are the greatest allies to tyranny. So what is the authority that makes the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments the law of the land and the authority in our lives?

Because of constructive and direct waivers by the states it has become common today to hear the once sovereign states referred to as only “quasi sovereign.”

Citizenship is, “The status of being a citizen” and may include a, “Membership in a political society, implying a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society.”115

Whether a citizen is still a natural inhabitant or has obtained membership in a political society he has certain rights, although, those rights may differ. The natural inhabitant may be a member of a society or civitas116 but he remains an individual with civil rights within that general body. Those “Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or the administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc.”117 An individual who becomes a member or person in a political society also has civil rights. But the origin of those rights being political are rights “pertaining or relating to the policy or administration of government..”118 So, “as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof.”119

The essential difference would seem to be that the former “are not connected with the organization or the administration of government” while the latter are “subject”.

“It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the Individual.” 120 “The rights of a citizen under one (state or United States citizenship) may be quite different from those which he has under the other…121

If the benefit of the latter citizenship includes the duty of subjection then the assent must require a voluntary consent or else such citizenship would be nothing more than involuntary servitude. There are countless ways of demonstrating the consummation of a voluntary consent.

“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”122

The United States Federal government gives to its’ citizens but only after they have bound themselves as eligible members. If all giving was by obligation there could be no charity. It is clear that the government has no binding contractual obligation to give what is its own to another.

“A thing is said given when it is yielded otherwise than by virtue of right.”123

“A gift is said to be pure and simple when no condition or qualification is annexed.”124 It is obvious that the government never gives a pure and simple gift. It is not only by sworn oaths or pledges of allegiance that we are made subject to government but by acceptance and performance.

“No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.”125

This being a maxim and fundamental law of nature, all men in possession of their natural perception cannot deny it. Ignorance of conditions and constructions of law can be no excuse.

“It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.”126

It does not really matter whether we are speaking of a citizenship of the State or the United States the same voluntary principles still apply. It is basically understood that “Merely being native born within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America does not make such an inhabitant a Citizen of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment.”127 If an individual or an inhabitant became a citizen of the United States under the fourteenth amendment, for what ever reason, he would be a member of that same political body. And therefore would be considered legally born again into the United States as a person. With a birth certificate he could apply for the privileges of that membership and incur the binding obligations of that legal association. But, “A person born in the United States has rights under this amendment (the 14th) to remain a citizen unless he voluntarily relinquishes the citizenship.”128

“To every man his own house is the safest refuge.”129

But why would someone wish to relinquish their US citizenship as a member of such a beneficially affluent political body. Do the cons of such a seemingly harmless relationship with a generally benevolent entity out way the pros of such a prosperous civil status so that someone, anyone, would want to completely abstain from its generous benefits. Or, is it the memberships’ requirements to waive our God given rights and the denial of universal truths, that calls the individual to abandon mere social securities, economic comforts and apparent gains of entitlements . Are there higher principles?

“Choosing rather to endure ill treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin;” (Heb. 11:25)

The Citizenship by “membership” also includes a “duty of allegiance on the part of the member.” Allegiance to a society or government that supplies the citizen with protection seems like no less than a reasonable exchange of consideration. But before we agree to grant our allegiance we should examine and understand the full extent of the price we shall be called to pay.

“Man’s primary allegiance is to his vision of truth, And he is under obligation to affirm it.”130

The concept of allegiance is defined in Black’s as, “The obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one.”131 This of course only refers to a citizen that is a member as opposed to one that is a mere inhabitant with possibly only one exception.

As an example a “Natural Allegiance,” as stated in English law, “is due from all men born within the king’s dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, which cannot be divested by any act of their own.” Such acts in principle would include the Declaration of Independence and the so called “America Revolution” if America and its’ freemen, domiciled on their own land, had not already been removed from that particular dominion of the king many years before by the manumitting charters of Charles the I and II.

“The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free.”132

This Maxim of English law was either forgotten or ignored by George the III although proclaimed by many men of England and parliament at the time. And it was the usurpation, by George, of the rights of the freeman living in the American republics which gave lawfulness to the Declaration of Independence. In actuality it was the King who did the revolting not America.

Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather. (1Co 7:21)

The principle upon which Natural Allegiance stands, although presented under other names, is the basis of the obedience owed a father by his children.

What is owed society or the body that represents society (government) may not be allegiance. If for instance a person has also become a “surety” for the debts of the society he may not simply denounce his obligation depending on the nature of that surety.

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. (Pr. 6:1,2)

It may be wise to ask ourselves what value is our allegiance to the U.S. federal government and what effect will it have on our relationship to others before we give our fidelity.

If, “The idea of law has commonly been analyzed as composed of three elements: first, a command of the lawgiver..; second, the obligation imposed thereby on the citizen; third, a sanction threatened in the event of disobedience”133 then, we can see in this definition of the law that there is an obligation imposed upon the citizen. This obligation is imposed by the granting of allegiance by the citizen to the lawgiver.

“Good men hate to sin through love of virtue; bad men through fear of punishment.”134

“Allegiance is, as it were, the essence of the law; it is the bond of faith.”135 Yet, “…faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11).

It should be becoming clearer that the granting of allegiance to the lawgiver is a binding act of faith, whether by proclaimed oath or pledge or silent acceptance or application and it is the essence of the dominion and authority of a lawgiver over the citizen.

“The chiefest part of everything is the beginning.”136

Where is the beginning of our binding allegiance? Is it at the swearing of oaths only? If by oath alone we could not obtain rights and privileges from our lawgiver (sovereign or master) until we had reached an age of reason and competence. But if it begins with our acceptance of or application for benefits then the point of its binding beginning may be remarkably early.

“‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.”137

The Natural Law and its Creator provide for the Father and Mother as Husband and Wife to have custody and dominion of their children. In Roman law Caesar’s rights to his authority or dominion over his subjects as emperor stemmed from his position as the vicarious pater, substitute father. In the Rome as in America today there was a dual system of citizenship.

Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman. He said, ‘Yes.’ - And the chief captain answered. With a great sum I obtained this freedom. And Paul said. But I was free born. Acts 22.

Tribute is, “A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter.”138 And “Excise (tribute), in its origin, is the patrimonial right of emperors and kings.”139

The subject of “Patronus” is a vast and interesting subject as a source of understanding the origins of tithes and taxes and its’ principles are still quoted in countless cases involving everything from trusts to postliminy. But it is best dealt with in another place. It is only important to mention here because it is the principle and origin upon which a proper and comprehensive subjective citizenship is based.

Since, a natural father gives the benefit of life to his child when the child is in the womb, so also it is important in the scheme of the system of things that the ‘substitute father ‘grants benefits to the individual while he is still in the womb.

“He who is in the womb is considered as born, whenever his benefit is concerned.”140

The Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act was “for the promotion, the welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy and for other purposes,” It was passed with a vote of 63 to 7, and by the house with a vote of 279 to 39, and was finally signed by the president and became law on Nov. 23, 1921. The act provided for the current fiscal year (1922) $10,000 for each state accepting the provisions of the act, and additional sum of $1,000,000.

The bill was a direct outgrowth of a nine year study made by the “Federal Children’s Bureau.” Note the Bureau was not the federal bureau for children but the bureau of the federal children. This act and the acceptance of its benefits by the states created the “United States birth registration area.”141

“(2) Birth Registration Document. The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.142

Did the federal government have the right to impose such legislation on the States? In 1923, it was argued by Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, “The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.” The complaint went on to state that, “The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power.” “The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act.”143

In the final analysis the Act was an offer from one corporate entity to another for the purpose of providing an avenue for the individual citizen of America to register as a subject of the State and therefore a citizen of the Federal corporate State, the true and actual sovereign agent, called the United States. The federal government would assume the position of Father of the subject citizen according to the law of Parens Patriae.144

And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mt. 23:9

This was a clear granting of gifts, gratuities and benefits, by government, to a child while he was still in the womb of his natural mother. All the children who were certified by the signature and seal of a natural parent, or a professional doctor and the representing county and state were eligible for further federal and state benefits as a child of the state and federal governments.

At one time a friend of mine tried to obtain a social security number for his nine year old son so that he could have the benefit of a deduction from his income tax. He was told that he could not get a number for his son without producing the boy’s Birth Certificate.

Because the boy did not have one (e.g DOB because he was born at home), they could not grant him the privilege of a Social Security number. As far as they were concerned the boy “didn’t exist” even though he was standing there before them. The boy was not a child of the state because he had not yet been legally born. This process of certifying a natural birth as a legal (or connecting) birth is not unlike being born again. What that certification begins a process of novation and manumission.

This certification does not create an everlasting bond of allegiance in itself but it shows the origins of the process by which a complete and total allegiance and membership is constructed. It is the beginning of the process of legally binding the individual on earth to a political or governmental structure.

Allegiance is, “‘The tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government] in return for that protection which the king [or government] affords the subject, [or citizen]’145 It consists in ‘a true and faithful obedience of the subject to his sovereign.’”146

“It matters not whether a revocation is made in word or deed.”147

This process of constructive faith, trust and allegiance through offers of mutual protection and subjection creates a relationship whereby, “The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes the citizen or subject of another government or sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.”148

“In the delivery of writings (deeds), not what is said but what is done is to be considered.”149

When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou [be] a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they [are] deceitful meat. (Proverbs 23:1, 3)

There are many different “open and distinct” acts by which to renounce your allegiance to one government or sovereign power and bind yourself to another. There are some individuals who have simply changed their name in the tradition of Abraham, Peter and Paul. Others may revoke on paper feeling that it has been only on paper that they have assented. But, all who change their allegiance must also change in their actions and deeds not merely in words, even though their revocation may have originally taken place by virtue of words.

“The words ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship,’ however, usually include the Idea of domicile.”150

There is little doubt that the individual has every right to be a natural inhabitant of the land as opposed to being a subject citizen of government. But there are other things and circumstances that make such natural freedom farther from the grasp of the average individual. But that will be dealt with elsewhere.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24)

There are two major societies in America today. The second exists within the first and is subject to the administration of its law.

The first is a general republic where the individual is “free from things public” where “no law may be made except by the consent of the freeman”. There the individual is subject to the natural law of the land.

The second has been created out of the law of the land whereby the individual can become subject to the will of the community by a previous consent. It must follow that there are also two types of citizenship in America today.

The first, is granted to an individual by the right of his natural birth and as a natural inhabitant of a free land subject to the “Law of Nature and Natures God,” his divine Creator and by the authority of the full “law of the land.”

The other citizenship is granted by virtue of a membership as a person in a political society under the authority or dominion of the Constitution and other Amendments and Acts of that political body. It is a membership that is bound either by words (oral or written oaths) or deeds (including overt or submissive acts) of faith and allegiance through the application for and/or only the passive acceptance of “bounties, donations and benefits.”

The former is free to become subject to whomever he chooses while the latter is already subject to the dominion of that collective society and shall become subject to whomever that society becomes subject.

Although, America is the “land of the free promised to the saints by God” according to Brendan the Navigator, The United States is occupying most of that land with their subject citizens. What choice would you make in this land of free dominion? After all, “Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibility of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.”151

And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15)

To whom are social security numbers assigned?

42 U.S.C., §405, which provides as follows:

(B)(i) subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F)… social security account numbers will… be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers…

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment;

(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and

(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number…

(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school.

If you are applying for or accepting benefits, you have begun the process of binding yourself to your provider and benefactor. If he, the benefactor, collects the funds to pay for your desires by force, in your name, you become a partaker of his sins.

American public school advocates, “imported three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the conditioning of children ‘to obedience, subordination, and collective life.’… Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented ‘subjects’ and school days were divided into fixed periods ‘so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.’ Third, the state was posited as the true parent of the children.” 152

The same principles, plots and pandoric “social control”153 that created in the individual minds of immolated children a reverence for the political fathers of a given nation are now turned to a more global union of man under the elite few of a planet devoid of the character of the Father in Heaven who created it. Now, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well -- by creating the international child of the future.” 154

For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, (Philippians 3:20)

Like, Abraham we should make our applications to the LORD of lords. We should not enter into contracts of servitude to false gods and serve men who are no gods. If we live like Abraham, by faith, we will be able to obey God rather than man.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15)

Why were the early Christians persecuted? Did they enter into contracts with Rome that would put them farther under the authority of Rome? We know that the apostate Jewish authority did.

But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. (John 19:15)

“Give obedience where ‘tis truly owed.” Shakespeare.

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. (John 15:19)

The Greek word for ‘world’ means “constitutional order” “or arrangement”.

Should we go under authority and power of men as some would have you believe Paul told us in Romans 13 when Paul said, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Ro. 13:1). Did he mean that we should enter into agreements and programs and relationships under ‘penalty of perjury’ that might eventually interfere with our obedience to Him who made us?

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1Co 6:12 )

If we find that we are slaves in a system of bondage that doesn’t prescribe always to the teachings of Christ should we seek to be free?

Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.
(1 Co. 7:20, 21)

It can be hard to let go of the benefits of the world. What is the calling of your heart?

Each man and woman must seek the path of his own faith, in the world he finds himself in, on the earth God made. Like Abraham and the faithful of old we must wander the desert of mankind and seek the faith and obedience of Christ, Jesus.

Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.155 (1 Jn 2:15-16)

“In our dreams, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand… The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.”156

What have we learned? There are at least two types of citizens in America. One is not connected to the administration of government and the other is subject to the administration of government. One is regulated by virtue of privilege and the other is a matter of right. Which citizenship you enjoy is a result of consent. That consent may be presumed as a result of application, acceptance or acquiescence.

Tribute is a patrimonial right. A patrimonial right is the right of the Father. Tribute is also an excise tax. Fathers and mothers began to release rights to their children by entering into constructive contracts with the state, by activities that create legal bonds with the state. Children take their first step of emancipation from the their natural Fathers granted by our Father in Heaven with the novation157 of birth certification.

The governments right to impose an excise or tribute tax on persons is because the government has presumed the office of Father, as a patron, in this process of novation. The next step in becoming the Vicarious Pater or Substitute Father is to supply a tutor or curator. It was upon these precepts of law that the Patronus of Rome and the modern state forged their greatest power over the people. These Benefactors are represented by schools, administrative agencies of welfare and provision, corporate police, doctors, lawyers and all such professional persons who provide care for this child of the state.

The corporate state acting as our substitute father imposes the ancient rule of Parens Patriae, Obey the Father. With this office of responsibility comes the power to demand greater and greater compliance to its will, exercising a greater and greater control.

Where does the government obtain such right and power? From us. What universal law does the state invoke to assure that authority?

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Exodus 20:12

Is it the plan of God that men should establish a corporate State to stand as a Substitute Father?

And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Mtt. 23:9

We find the word patri in that Greek text where Jesus went on to expound on this command in Matthew 23:10

Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

He repeated this command in Luke 22:25 ...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

We are to neither make men our father nor are we to be masters of our neighbors and brothers. Why does Jesus give us this command to not be like the nations? Because he was preaching a new kingdom was at hand.

Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

What is the third and final step to total subjection under the Substitute Father, the State?

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." Jefferson, Thomas

-------------------------------------------------------

EMPLOY (the acceptable word)

Vs.

Enslave (the unacceptable word)

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11:7-9)

Babble is defined in Webster’s as, “to say indistinctly or incoherently,” or “to talk thoughtlessly.” While the word understand is defined “to apprehend or comprehend; to know or grasp the meaning, import, intention, or motive of; to perceive or discern the meaning of; as, to understand a problem, an argument, an oracle, a secret sign, indistinct speech, etc.” So, let us try to apprehend the motive of words like employment in order to understand the problem and maybe even the secret sign of what now may only be thoughtless and indistinct speech.

We are ignorant of many things which would not be hidden from us if the reading of old authors was familiar to us.”158

If we continue with Webster’s we find employ to be defined, “1. to occupy the time, attention, and labor of; to keep busy or at work; as, we employ our hands in labor. 2. to use; to make use of;… 3. to provide work and pay for; as, public works employ thousands of men. 4. to engage in one’s service; to hire; as, the president employed an envoy to negotiate a treaty… Syn.. -- use, hire, occupy, devote, busy, engage, commission.”159

The synonyms listed here give a greater insight into the meaning of the word employ. The first synonym we should note is the word use which as a verb is defined, “To make use of, to convert to ones service, to avail one’s self of, to employ.”160 To employ as a verb then denotes the idea of conversion. As a noun it is defined as, “A confidence reposed in another…161 A use is further described as a “A right in a person, called the cestui que use, to take the profits of land of which another has legal title and possession, together with the duty of defending the same and of making estates therefore according to the direction of the cestui que use.”162 A use by nature is a trust. “Uses and trusts are not so much different things as different aspects of the same subject.”163

American labor, which is the capital of our workingmen.” 164

Hire on the other hand is, “A bailment in which compensation is to be given for the use of a thing, or for labor and services about it. This contract arises from the principles of natural law: it is voluntary, and founded in consent: it involves mutual and reciprocal obligations; and it is for mutual benefit …in hiring, the use of the thing is the object.”165 The contract to hire arises from the natural law and by itself is not a subject of equity. Hiring for an immediate and equal exchange should be considered different than hiring for the purposes of profit and gain at a future time for that would imply an interest or usury.

“All governm